Apple injunction defeats, and now under anti-trust cloud

DCop beat me to it, but AAPL has just been dealt a major blow in the EU, which could not only affect their future patent litigation, but also possibly the recognition of their existing and future patent portfolio and the application process. The UK now has struck down AAPL's motion against HTC on their "patents". It is in quotes because now it seems that the UK does not recognize most of AAPL's purported "patents" as valid or original....

The U.K. court judgment “marks a considerable defeat for Apple in the smartphone patent wars,” said Peter Bell, an attorney at Stevens & Bolton LLP, who isn’t involved in the case. “Two of Apple’s prize patents have been knocked out in the U.K.”

Cnet wrote:

Judge Christopher Floyd also said that three of the four patents were invalid, according to Bloomberg.

The only patent that was ruled to be valid relates to Apple's photo-management software, but HTC did not infringe on it, according to the court.

The other three invalid patents relate to Apple's multitouch software, alphabet-changing software, and the iPhone and iPad's slide-to-unlock feature.The same four patents are to be tested in a German court later this year

DCop beat me to it, but AAPL has just been dealt a major blow in the EU, which could not only affect their future patent litigation, but also possibly the recognition of their existing and future patent portfolio and the application process.

UK, not Europe. The UK has treated software patents very differently than the EPO.

DCop beat me to it, but AAPL has just been dealt a major blow in the EU, which could not only affect their future patent litigation, but also possibly the recognition of their existing and future patent portfolio and the application process.

UK, not Europe. The UK has treated software patents very differently than the EPO.

UK is part of the EU. The proper word that you are looking for is Eurozone. At least get the basic terminology right if you are going to make anything close to cogent arguments.

You need to seriously distinguish between a continent (Europe), a political entity (EU), a customs union (Eurozone), and a bunch of other things. If you mix these basic concepts up, there is no hope of your arguments being anything other than a jumble of non-sense.

You linked four different articles that all said that this decision was from the UK High Court of Justice. Are all of them incorrect, or are you claiming the UK court ruling applies to the European countries that fall under the EPO?

You linked four different articles that all said that this decision was from the UK High Court of Justice. Are all of them incorrect, or are you claiming the UK court ruling applies to the European countries that fall under the EPO?

I made no such claim, but it will certainly have some effect on future rulings.

You are clueless again:

European Patent Convention wrote:

The Convention entered into force on 7 October 1977 for the following first countries: Belgium, Germany (then West Germany), France, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland and United Kingdom, and on 1 May 1978 for Sweden. However, the first patent applications were filed on 1 June 1978 (date fixed by the Administrative Council which held its first meeting on 19 October 1977). Subsequently, other countries have joined the EPC

There are, as of June 2012, 38 Contracting States to the EPC, also called member states of the European Patent Organisation:[13] Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United Kingdom (see European Patent Convention article for the dates of entry in force in each country). The EPC entered into force in Serbia on October 1, 2010.

I guess you really do not actually read anything that you post yourself. Your posts here should be saved for posterity to see ....

In the same way that some state court ruling in the US might affect other ruling elsewhere in the US.

By now, you have completely confused Europe, EU, Eurozone (that's the entity that UK is not a member of ), and the EPC. It's truly painful to watch your posts with the layers and layers of self contradiction and the lack of the most basic knowledge that an average person on the street of any EU country would have.

DCop beat me to it, but AAPL has just been dealt a major blow in the EU,

Maybe you meant to say "major blow in the UK", but that's not what you typed and what I corrected you on. I'm not sure what the rest of this nonsense is.

No, I mean in the EU, as UK is a part of the EU. And corporate law have some level of influence on future decisions within the same political entity; although not the same level of effect as within the same country (as an earlier ruling in Germany on the later ruling in Germany). It will have the same level of effect on the recognition of validity of patents, as any other country that is a member of the EPC (Gemany, Netherlands, etc); but in terms of import customs (especially with regard to temporary injunctions) it will have a less of an influence than another decision within the Eurozone.

The rest of this non-sense is entirely from you. I actually said nothing about Europe, Eurozone, or the EPC until you decide to bring these orthogonal issues in.

By now, you have completely confused Europe, EU, Eurozone (that's the entity that UK is not a member of ), and the EPC. It's truly painful to watch your posts with the layers and layers of self contradiction and the lack of the most basic knowledge that an average person on the street of any EU country would have.

This is coming from the guy who keeps getting the definition of Eurozone wrong.

By now, you have completely confused Europe, EU, Eurozone (that's the entity that UK is not a member of ), and the EPC. It's truly painful to watch your posts with the layers and layers of self contradiction and the lack of the most basic knowledge that an average person on the street of any EU country would have.

This is coming from the guy who keeps getting the definition of Eurozone wrong.

Wait, are you just making things up now? I never gave a definition for Eurozone; not that it's even necessary for the 90% of us that actually pay attention to the rest of the world.

In the same way that some state court ruling in the US might affect other ruling elsewhere in the US.

Now you're weaseling. Realized you messed up now?

Your statement is actually wrong as well, which I'll clarify below.

Quote:

By now, you have completely confused Europe, EU, Eurozone (that's the entity that UK is not a member of ), and the EPC. It's truly painful to watch your posts with the layers and layers of self contradiction and the lack of the most basic knowledge that an average person on the street of any EU country would have.

I'm perfectly aware of what the various geopolitical groups are, and I've been very specific to discuss only the UK, and the countries that fall under the EPO (which includes countries not in the EU but are not relevant to this discussion) . The reason for the specificity is this issue, which I've already linked above and is summarized as:

Quote:

Compared to the EPO, the UKIPO have consistently taken a very different approach when deciding whether or not to grant patents involving software. This has sometimes drawn criticism from those advocating the need for harmony across Europe.

The Economist magazine is critical of this regularly - specifically there is no EU-wide patent regulation as your statement of this dealing "a major blow in the EU" would imply.

So you're statement is proven false - this was a blow in the UK, but not in the EU. And because the UK courts have different standards than the EPO courts, this is not necessarily a sign of a similar judgement.

In the same way that some state court ruling in the US might affect other ruling elsewhere in the US.

Now you're weaseling. Realized you messed up now?

Your statement is actually wrong as well, which I'll clarify below.

Quote:

By now, you have completely confused Europe, EU, Eurozone (that's the entity that UK is not a member of ), and the EPC. It's truly painful to watch your posts with the layers and layers of self contradiction and the lack of the most basic knowledge that an average person on the street of any EU country would have.

I'm perfectly aware of what the various geopolitical groups are, and I've been very specific to discuss only the UK, and the countries that fall under the EPO (which includes countries not in the EU but are not relevant to this discussion) . The reason for the specificity is this issue, which I've already linked above and is summarized as:

Quote:

Compared to the EPO, the UKIPO have consistently taken a very different approach when deciding whether or not to grant patents involving software. This has sometimes drawn criticism from those advocating the need for harmony across Europe.

The Economist magazine is critical of this regularly - specifically there is no EU-wide patent regulation as your statement of this dealing "a major blow in the EU" would imply.

So you're statement is proven false - this was a blow in the UK, but not in the EU. And because the UK courts have different standards than the EPO courts, this is not necessarily a sign of a similar judgement.

First that statement is 100% true, as UK is a part of the EU, anything that happens in the UK also happened in the EU.

I never said that there is EU-wide patent enforcement; such a thing actually does not exist. No uniform patent or customs enforcement that includes all EU countries exist. I never implied anything of the sort. If you actually thought that I did imply that, then you do not understand the definition of logical implication.

Also EPOrg (as there are other acronyms that could use EPO) has no courts, it is a body functions to review patent applications and grant them when approrpiate, which has its governance in ACEPOrg, which are attended by representatives from the EPC. EPC is actually the organization that contains member states in which the patents are ruled valid or otherwise; and EPOrg is a creation of the EPC. The member states of the EPC contain courts that have jurisdiction over relevant cases that could be brought on account of some patent issued from the EPOrg.

The rest of this non-sense is entirely from you. I actually said nothing about Europe, Eurozone, or the EPC until you decide to bring these orthogonal issues in.

Try again. I've never mentioned the Eurozone. You brought that up. Literally CTRL+F and read this page.

Quote:

Wait, are you just making things up now? I never gave a definition for Eurozone; not that it's even necessary for the 90% of us that actually pay attention to the rest of the world.

Must have been some other hardball that said "Eurozone (that's the entity that UK is not a member of )".

No that's simply a statement which means that UK is not a part of the Eurozone, which is 100% true. I don't know what type of wierd definition of Eurozone that you are using; or you actually think that UK is part of the European Customs and Monetary Union?

First that statement is 100% true, as UK is a part of the EU, anything that happens in the UK also happened in the EU.

Quote:

Also EPOrg (as there are other acronyms that could use EPO) has no courts, it is a body functions to review patent applications and grant them when approrpiate, which has its governance in ACEPOrg, which are attended by representatives from the EPC. EPC is actually the organization that contains member states in which the patents are ruled valid or otherwise; and EPOrg is a creation of the EPC. The member states of the EPC contain courts that have jurisdiction over relevant cases that could be brought on account of some patent issued from the EPOrg.

First that statement is 100% true, as UK is a part of the EU, anything that happens in the UK also happened in the EU.

Quote:

Also EPOrg (as there are other acronyms that could use EPO) has no courts, it is a body functions to review patent applications and grant them when approrpiate, which has its governance in ACEPOrg, which are attended by representatives from the EPC. EPC is actually the organization that contains member states in which the patents are ruled valid or otherwise; and EPOrg is a creation of the EPC. The member states of the EPC contain courts that have jurisdiction over relevant cases that could be brought on account of some patent issued from the EPOrg.

In the same way that some state court ruling in the US might affect other ruling elsewhere in the US.

Now you're weaseling. Realized you messed up now?

Your statement is actually wrong as well, which I'll clarify below.

Quote:

By now, you have completely confused Europe, EU, Eurozone (that's the entity that UK is not a member of ), and the EPC. It's truly painful to watch your posts with the layers and layers of self contradiction and the lack of the most basic knowledge that an average person on the street of any EU country would have.

I'm perfectly aware of what the various geopolitical groups are, and I've been very specific to discuss only the UK, and the countries that fall under the EPO (which includes countries not in the EU but are not relevant to this discussion) . The reason for the specificity is this issue, which I've already linked above and is summarized as:

Quote:

Compared to the EPO, the UKIPO have consistently taken a very different approach when deciding whether or not to grant patents involving software. This has sometimes drawn criticism from those advocating the need for harmony across Europe.

The Economist magazine is critical of this regularly - specifically there is no EU-wide patent regulation as your statement of this dealing "a major blow in the EU" would imply.

So you're statement is proven false - this was a blow in the UK, but not in the EU. And because the UK courts have different standards than the EPO courts, this is not necessarily a sign of a similar judgement.

First that statement is 100% true, as UK is a part of the EU, anything that happens in the UK also happened in the EU.

I never said that there is EU-wide patent enforcement; such a thing actually does not exist. No uniform patent or customs enforcement that includes all EU countries exist. I never implied anything of the sort. If you actually thought that I did imply that, then you do not understand the definition of logical implication.

Also EPOrg (as there are other acronyms that could use EPO) has no courts, it is a body functions to review patent applications and grant them when approrpiate, which has its governance in ACEPOrg, which are attended by representatives from the EPC. EPC is actually the organization that contains member states in which the patents are ruled valid or otherwise; and EPOrg is a creation of the EPC. The member states of the EPC contain courts that have jurisdiction over relevant cases that could be brought on account of some patent issued from the EPOrg.

How is it "incumbant [sic] on me" to show something I never said? That's really impressive meta-trolling.

But please keep going. This is hilarious watching you dig a really impressive hole.

I'll help you out a little bit. In a post above you talked about "representatives from the EPC" and "EPC is actually the organization". Where are the offices where these representatives work? Are you sure the "organization" doesn't go by a different name?

How is it "incumbant [sic] on me" to show something I never said? That's really impressive meta-trolling.

But please keep going. This is hilarious watching you dig a really impressive hole.

I'll help you out a little bit. In a post above you talked about "representatives from the EPC" and "EPC is actually the organization". Where are the offices where these representatives work? Are you sure the "organization" doesn't go by a different name?

You have trolled this entire thread all along, and you are accusing others of what you do all the time?

The difference is like the difference between the US government, which contains the judicial branch, and the USPTO, which clearly does not contain the judicial branch. Try to go to any EU agency in Brussels or Straussbourg, and ask them if the EPOrg contains the courts of the EPC member states; they will laugh you out the front door.

What you linked actually contains things exactly consistent with what I said:

European Patent Organization wrote:

The European Patent Organisation is an intergovernmental organisation that was set up on 7 October 1977 on the basis of the European Patent Convention (EPC) signed in Munich in 1973. It has two bodies, the European Patent Office and the Administrative Council, which supervises the Office's activities.

The usage that you were trying to deal this with, was like saying that: the UN General assembly contains all the courts of the member states; or the United States Senate contains all the state courts of the 50 states.

It's clear you figured out your mistake, because you're desperately trying to deflect attention to anything but the original statement:

"AAPL has just been dealt a major blow in the EU"

As I said before and you've continue to avoid - this was a UK court ruling, and does not impact the EU, the members of the EPO, or the countries on the continent of Europe, or any other "euro" geopolitical entity you feel like trying to introduce to this discussion that's just is irrelevant.

It's a UK decision, that only effects business in the UK. And has I've shown above, the UK Courts have a very different approach to software patents and this is not even necessarily a preview of any future decisions outside the UK.

I will admit that I've never seen so many straw men be constructed so quickly, and for that I will tip my hat.

It's clear you figured out your mistake, because you're desperately trying to deflect attention to anything but the original statement:

"AAPL has just been dealt a major blow in the EU"

As I said before and you've continue to avoid - this was a UK court ruling, and does not impact the EU, the members of the EPO, or the countries on the continent of Europe, or any other "euro" geopolitical entity you feel like trying to introduce to this discussion that's just is irrelevant.

It's a UK decision, that only effects business in the UK. And has I've shown above, the UK Courts have a very different approach to software patents and this is not even necessarily a preview of any future decisions outside the UK.

I will admit that I've never seen so many straw men be constructed so quickly, and for that I will tip my hat.

Yes absolutely

AAPL has been dealt a major blow in the EU

EU contains the UK; no matter what assumption you make about how one court's decision influence another, anything happening in the UK by definition happens within the EU. Again, you are probably talking about a different organization, such as the Eurozone, which would make your statement actually sensible, you just are so obstinate that you cannot see the difference in between.

UK is in the EU.UK is not a member of the Euro aka Eurozone. I'm assuming (but dont know) that the common currency has little to do with patent infringements & is tied up in the greater EU clusterfuck of legality.

UK is in the EU.UK is not a member of the Euro aka Eurozone. I'm assuming (but dont know) that the common currency has little to do with patent infringements & is tied up in the greater EU clusterfuck of legality.

Of course; I only brought up eurozone because I thought that's what he might have meant by "UK not being in the EU". I didn't think it is of any particular significance, except that the closely associated Customs Union has some influence on injunctions of product imports and such, by the virtue of which the ease of passing of people and goods within a common border. I'm referring not to eh European Union Customs Union, which is much older and preceded the EU and even its predecessor EEC, but the Schengen area. This is a de facto customs union, within which there is no internal border controls; which used to be identified with the Eurozone (then called European Customs and Monetary Union), before Sweden, I think entered into Schengen. It is still largely identified with the Eurozone though. Now there are some other discrepencies between the two because of some new Eastern Europe countries that have recently joined, and some changes to how they control overseas territories and such. That's what I thought he meant....

UK is in the EU.UK is not a member of the Euro aka Eurozone. I'm assuming (but dont know) that the common currency has little to do with patent infringements & is tied up in the greater EU clusterfuck of legality.

Of course; I only brought up eurozone because I thought that's what he might have meant by "UK not being in the EU".

I'm still laughing my ass off, because that's not what I said. Here's my exact words from my original reply at the top of this page:

Quote:

The UK has treated software patents very differently than the EPO.

This whole geography lesson is completely in hardball's head, as I have always been talking about patent enforcement by the EPO, and how hardball's claim that the UK's court decision impacts business across the EU.

UK is in the EU.UK is not a member of the Euro aka Eurozone. I'm assuming (but dont know) that the common currency has little to do with patent infringements & is tied up in the greater EU clusterfuck of legality.

Of course; I only brought up eurozone because I thought that's what he might have meant by "UK not being in the EU".

I'm still laughing my ass off, because that's not what I said. Here's my exact words from my original reply at the top of this page:

Quote:

The UK has treated software patents very differently than the EPO.

This whole geography lesson is completely in hardball's head, as I have always been talking about patent enforcement by the EPO, and how hardball's claim that the UK's court decision impacts business across the EU.

Please post some more maps though. It's really quite hilarious.

Let me remind you of what you said exactly:

Benhameen wrote:

hardball wrote:

DCop beat me to it, but AAPL has just been dealt a major blow in the EU, which could not only affect their future patent litigation, but also possibly the recognition of their existing and future patent portfolio and the application process.

UK, not Europe. The UK has treated software patents very differently than the EPO.

Benhameen wrote:

hardball wrote:

I made no such claim, but it will certainly have some effect on future rulings.

DCop beat me to it, but AAPL has just been dealt a major blow in the EU,

Maybe you meant to say "major blow in the UK", but that's not what you typed and what I corrected you on. I'm not sure what the rest of this nonsense is.

Benhameen wrote:

hardball wrote:

First that statement is 100% true, as UK is a part of the EU, anything that happens in the UK also happened in the EU.

Just quoting these for hilarity in case they get deleted.

So you either did not recognize that UK is in EU, or that UK is in Europe, probably both. Either way, it's clear that you have no idea where which countries are, and have made a total fool of yourself tonight. There is nothing to mitigate that.

UK is in the EU.UK is not a member of the Euro aka Eurozone. I'm assuming (but dont know) that the common currency has little to do with patent infringements & is tied up in the greater EU clusterfuck of legality.

Of course; I only brought up eurozone because I thought that's what he might have meant by "UK not being in the EU".

I'm still laughing my ass off, because that's not what I said. Here's my exact words from my original reply at the top of this page:

Quote:

The UK has treated software patents very differently than the EPO.

This whole geography lesson is completely in hardball's head, as I have always been talking about patent enforcement by the EPO, and how hardball's claim that the UK's court decision impacts business across the EU.

Please post some more maps though. It's really quite hilarious.

And especially this point, you still don't realize that UK is a member of EPC, the functioning body of which is the EPOrg; which is indeed quite hilarious....

European Patent Organization wrote:

There are, as of June 2012, 38 Contracting States to the EPC, also called member states of the European Patent Organisation:[13] Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United Kingdom (see European Patent Convention article for the dates of entry in force in each country). The EPC entered into force in Serbia on October 1, 2010.

UK is in the EU.UK is not a member of the Euro aka Eurozone. I'm assuming (but dont know) that the common currency has little to do with patent infringements & is tied up in the greater EU clusterfuck of legality.

Of course; I only brought up eurozone because I thought that's what he might have meant by "UK not being in the EU".

I'm still laughing my ass off, because that's not what I said. Here's my exact words from my original reply at the top of this page:

Quote:

The UK has treated software patents very differently than the EPO.

This whole geography lesson is completely in hardball's head, as I have always been talking about patent enforcement by the EPO, and how hardball's claim that the UK's court decision impacts business across the EU.

Please post some more maps though. It's really quite hilarious.

And especially this point, you still don't realize that UK is a member of EPC, the functioning body of which is the EPOrg; which is indeed quite hilarious....

European Patent Organization wrote:

There are, as of June 2012, 38 Contracting States to the EPC, also called member states of the European Patent Organisation:[13] Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United Kingdom (see European Patent Convention article for the dates of entry in force in each country). The EPC entered into force in Serbia on October 1, 2010.

What a magnificent "home goal" by Benhameen. I think the first step to recovery is acceptance, i.e. acknowledge reality??

Wait, are you just making things up now? I never gave a definition for Eurozone;

hardball wrote:

a customs union (Eurozone)

Pay attention, 007.

Not a definition, but a classification. Actually just a classification of the aspectt of the eurozone that was relevant to the discussion here: the Schengen area; specifically the attribute relevant to the effect of any import injunctions (once goods iin schengen, there is more or less free movement). Not even the entire entity, merely a description of one associated aspect of it.

You should take a basic international studies course; Eurozone began (by that I mean had its origins in) a customs union....

Who gives a shit as to what it was 10+ years ago? We're talking about what it is. Anyone who actually knows what they're talking about refers to the monetary union when they talk about the Eurozone, nobody uses that term to refer to the customs union.

You should take a basic international studies course; Eurozone began (by that I mean had its origins in) a customs union....

Who gives a shit as to what it was 10+ years ago? We're talking about what it is. Anyone who actually knows what they're talking about refers to the monetary union when they talk about the Eurozone, nobody uses that term to refer to the customs union.

It functionally still is a customs union, which exists as the Schengen (the direct predecessor of the eurozone). When it was conceived, it was a mere extension of the Schengen with the same countries and about the same borders (treatment of certain territories were a little different), until Sweden decided to join the new monetary union. Today, Schengen still is a prominent feature in terms of dealing with emigration of people and movement of goods. So yes, it still matters a lot today.

Anyways, I was just guessing what our friend Benhameen meant, when he was referring to some quasi-panEuro area that includes the countries where the litigations already went on (France, Spain, Netherlands, Germany); and something that is relevant to patent rulings, but does not include the UK; that's the only thing actually make logical sense. EPC certainly did not make sense, since UK is a founding member thereof; other entities like the primary custom union: the EUCU, also includes the UK as well since the 50s, as these other countries; and EU itself certainly does not fit the bill. It was the only possible answer if he was thinking of some entity that was relevant to this discussion here.

Quite frankly, I don't give a crap about what you have to say about the litigation, because it's pretty clear you only want to post about when Apple loses and ignore when it wins. What I'm talking about is your beligerence about the discussion of EU vs. UK when you yourself are conflating the EUCU and the Eurozone.

Quite frankly, I don't give a crap about what you have to say about the litigation, because it's pretty clear you only want to post about when Apple loses and ignore when it wins. What I'm talking about is your beligerence about the discussion of EU vs. UK when you yourself are conflating the EUCU and the Eurozone.

That's a thread about Google's defeats, not HTC's, if you want to take that literal interpretation.

Quote:

The EUCU is a distinct entity from the Schengen, but they both function as customs unions in different and sometimes overlapping ways.

So what you're saying is that you're using terminology that nobody's used in the context you're refering to for over a decade to refer to something that's defunct? And you have the audacity to lambast others? Good lord man.

That's a thread about Google's defeats, not HTCs, if you want to take that literal interpretation.

Quote:

The EUCU is a distinct entity from the Schengen, but they both function as customs unions in different and sometimes overlapping ways.

So what you're saying is that you're using terminology that nobody's used for over a decade to refer to something that's defunct? And you have the audacity to lambast others? Good lord man.

Sure the actual terminology is from a decade ago; but you should also know that EUCU wasn't even originally called EUCU, but simply an administrative division of the EEC. Change in terminology does not change their function substantially.

The EUCU mostly functions to control tariffs on goods from external areas, and those through the ECIP. Schengen has the most relevance to customs checks that individual travelers face when travelling in Europe.